A popular topic of debate over the years, both amongst my fellow 3MW writers and basketball analysts everywhere, is who are the best coaches in America. This argument is certainly a subjective one and includes many variables. In the following piece, I try to add a little more objectivity to this debate.

Coaching success can be evaluated using several measures: regular season success, conference success, conference championships, NCAA Tournament appearances, Final Fours, Championships, etc. In addition, sometimes coaching “success” isn’t entirely in the complete control of the coach. Variables such as strength of schedule, school prestige and reputation for recruiting purposes, conference strength, and tournament seeding all have impacts. In my opinion, whether mid-major or Power 5, the best identifier for coaching success is how a team performs during a season versus how they were expected to perform.

This “performance variance” forms the nucleus of my coaching rankings. Using KenPom data, I compared the average starting rank of a particular team with its average finish over the last five years. I then assigned point values to the resulting “percentage performance variance” (= change in ranking / avg. starting rank).

Example: Mark Few of Gonzaga has had an average starting rank of 22 over the last 5 years and an ending rank of 18. That means on average, Few has exceeded expectations by 4 ranking spots per season. His percentage performance variance is 19% (= 4 / 22). Points are assigned on the following scale:

>(200%): -5 points
(199%) – (100%): -4 points
(99%) – (50%): -3 points
(49%) – (25%): -2 points
(24%) – (10%): -1 point
(9%) – 0%: 0 points
1% - 10%: 1 point
11% - 20%: 2 points
21% - 30%: 3 points
31% - 40%: 4 points
>41%: 5 points

As such, Few would earn 2 points towards his total score due to his variance of 19%.

The next two pieces of my criteria revolve around postseason success, because every team’s ultimate goal is to make the NCAA Tournament and eventually win a championship. As I tracked the last five seasons, coaches were awarded one point per tournament appearance. Using Few as an example again, his Gonzaga teams made the tournament 5 times in the last 5 years, so he is awarded 5 points.

The second part of the postseason criteria is actual performance in the Tournament. Points are awarded based on which round the team makes it to as follows:

First Round: 1 point
Second Round: 2 points
Sweet Sixteen: 3 points
Elite Eight: 4 points
Final Four: 5 points
Final: 6 points
Champions: 7 points

Few has led Gonzaga to the Second Round four times and the Elite Eight once in the past five seasons. As such his points are calculated as follows: (4 x 2 points) + (1 x 4 points) = 12 points.

These three factors discussed above form the rankings of the 50 coaches in this study. As an added point of analysis, I included recruiting grades for each coach based on how their classes ranked since 2008 (as 2008 freshmen would be 2011 seniors). The caveat on this analysis is that obviously a lot of top recruits leave before playing a full four years. As such the recruiting grade is not factored into the “Final Ranking”. In addition, because some coaches “inherited” players they did not recruit when they took a position, I have included a “Recruiting” rank and a separate “Recruits” rank. The Recruits rank includes all players whether recruited by that coach or not. The Recruiting rank includes only players recruited by that coach. Although the “Recruiting” and “Recruits” grades will not affect points, they will act as tie-breakers. If two coaches have the same amount of points, the coach with the worse “Recruits” grade will get the nod at the better rank. This is to the assumption the coach with “worse” recruits had “worse” players, and therefore had to rely more on his “coaching ability” rather than the raw talent of his players. The secondary tie-breaker will be best performance variance percentage.

Now that the criteria and rules are set, I give you the rankings of the coaches. Note that this study includes 50 coaches spread over 12 conferences (40 coaches are from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12). By no means are these the "best 50 coaches" in the nation, rather they are more a sample of 50 coaches (though I did focus on choosing some of the more notable coaches). See Part 3 of the article for 21 coaches that got snubbed from the study.

Part I: #50 – #30

50. Oliver Purnell (DePaul) (Currently out of a job)
Average Starting Rank: 135th
Average Finishing Rank: 175th
Performance Variance: -30%
Tournament Appearances: 0
Tournament Performance: N/A
Recruiting: D-
Recruits: D-
Total Score: -2

Purnell is the only coach on this list currently out of a job. He was included in this study because I think it’s kind of amazing how mediocre/poor of a coach he is, and yet he still was employed for consecutive seasons from 1988 – 2015. In those years Purnell has NEVER won an NCAA tournament game. My ranking system is in a way validated by his last-place rank. At 5 years at DePaul, he never made an NCAA tournament and consistently finished lower than expected. Prior to DePaul, Purnell made three straight Tourneys with Clemson, but they don’t count towards this ranking (and he didn’t win a tourney game). Old Ollie is the only coach in this study to finish with a negative overall score. Congrats coach!

49. Lorenzo Romar (Washington)
Average Starting Rank: 47th
Average Finishing Rank: 73rd
Performance Variance: -55%
Tournament Appearances: 1
Tournament Performance: 1 Second Round
Recruiting: C-
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 0

After a pretty decent stretch from 2004 – 2010 Romar and the Huskies have fallen on hard times. Despite fairly strong recruiting, Washington has missed the last four NCAA tournaments and has finished below expectations nearly every year since 2011. Romar should be feeling the heat on his chair in his 14th season at the helm of the Purple and Gold.

48. Frank Haith (Miami, Missouri, Tulsa)
Average Starting Rank: 36th
Average Finishing Rank: 52nd
Performance Variance: -45%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds
Recruiting: C+
Recruits: B-
Total Score: 2

I’ll hand it to Frank Haith – the dude knows how to slither out of sticky coaching situations. At Miami, Haith bolted right before allegations came out against several Hurricanes coaches, and at Mizzou, Haith sucked the life blood out of one of the most talented teams in the country (thanks to Mike Anderson recruits), lost to 15-seeded Norfolk State, and proceeded to decline in finish each of his three years as the Tiger head coach (yes he won National Coach of the Year – Oliver Purnell could have won Coach of the Year with that team). Seeing the writing on the wall and potentially brutal Mizzou team to follow in 2015, he sought greener pastures at Tulsa where he was rewarded with too much money and a pretty talented squad. Haith may have some programs fooled into thinking he’s a great coach, but he won’t be let off the hook in this analysis. 48/50.

47. Travis Ford (Oklahoma State)
Average Starting Rank: 32nd
Average Finishing Rank: 52nd
Performance Variance: -60%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 3 First Rounds
Recruiting: C-
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 3

I’ve kind of always suspected Travis Ford isn’t a great coach and this ranking partially justifies that suspicion. Nice!

46. Jamie Dixon (Pittsburgh)
Average Starting Rank: 15th
Average Finishing Rank: 36th
Performance Variance: -136%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: C+
Recruits: C+
Total Score: 4

45. Bruce Weber (Illinois, Kansas State)
Average Starting Rank: 33rd   
Average Finishing Rank: 51st  
Performance Variance: -55%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds, 1 Second Round
Recruiting: C-
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 4

Jamie Dixon and Bruce Weber tied in overall score, but Weber gets the nod at 45th due to his slightly more inferior recruiting classes. Dixon’s ranking was hurt by his ghastly performance variance. Pitt was one of the best teams in the country in 2011 and was expected to continue to be good through 2015. While finishing on average 36th in the nation the last five years isn’t awful, it’s not great when you consider where Pitt started the year. This combined with Pitt’s lackluster tourney performance (second round exit as a 1-seed in 2011) is why Dixon lands here. After 2006, Weber’s Illinois teams were consistently average at best. After 2013, his Kansas State teams have been consistently average at best. Meh.

44. Mark Turgeon (Texas A&M, Maryland)
Average Starting Rank: 59th
Average Finishing Rank: 60th  
Performance Variance: -1%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Second Round
Recruiting: D+
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 5

Turgeon’s performance variance suggests he hasn’t necessarily been a bad coach. From 2008 – 2011, Turgeon led some pretty good A&M teams to four straight Tourneys. His downfall lies in his early Maryland years after his atrocious rookie season in which the Terps finished ranked 129th per KenPom compared to their 50th starting spot. Since that dismal season, Turgeon has kept the program on an even keel, and appears to be building it into something great again with strong recruiting, both on the transfer-side and high school influx. This year will be telling of his true coaching prowess. Maryland is clearly loaded this season and expected to contend for a national title – a first or second round exit may warm up his seat a bit in College Park.

43. Johnny Jones (North Texas, LSU)
Average Starting Rank: 139th
Average Finishing Rank: 109th  
Performance Variance: 21%
Tournament Appearances: 1
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round
Recruiting: D
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 5

Full disclosure: I had no idea Johnny Jones was a long time coach of North Texas. What I did and do know is that he is not a very good coach. Frankly I’m a little surprised to even see him this high. The underlying factor in his 43rd place ranking is his rather good performance variance which basically stems from his 2012 season with North Texas in which the Mean Green were supposed to be one of the 100 worst teams in the country, and instead won 18 games. At LSU he has improved on expectations each year he has captained the ship, but if you watched the Tigers last season (or bet on them), it’s possible you saw one or ten head-scratching moments. This was a super-talented squad last season and yet still managed to only finish 44th per KenPom and earned a 9 seed in the Dance. A bi-polar squad (beat WV, Ark, Fla 2x, lost to Auburn 2x, Mizzou, and Miss. St.) is usually not a well-coached one. You skate by at #43 Johnny Jones, but I’ve got my eye on you.

42. Kevin Stallings (Vanderbilt)
Average Starting Rank: 56th  
Average Finishing Rank: 59th  
Performance Variance: -6%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Second Round
Recruiting: D+
Recruits: D+
Total Score: 5

41. Matt Painter (Purdue)
Average Starting Rank: 30th
Average Finishing Rank: 49th
Performance Variance: -62%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: D
Recruits: D
Total Score: 5

Stallings led Vandy to three straight top-5 seeds in the Dance from 2010-2012. Vandy then had two car-wreck seasons where they failed to reach .500, but then rallied in 2015, finishing 36th in the country per KenPom, despite not making the Tournament. This season Stallings has the Commodores firing on all cylinders; they simply look like one of the best teams in the nation this year. I actually believe Stallings is a capable coach, but a three-year tourney drought in a five-year analysis doesn’t do your rating any favors. This sentiment can be echoed for Matt Painter and Purdue. Painter’s poor variance percentage (brutal 2014, started 30th, finished 97th) hurts his three tourney appearances, but, like Vandy, Purdue is one of the nation’s best teams this season, and, like Stallings, I hold Painter in high regard.

40. Cuonzo Martin (Missouri State, Tennessee, California)
Average Starting Rank: 61st
Average Finishing Rank: 65th  
Performance Variance: -6%
Tournament Appearances: 1
Tournament Performance: 1 Elite Eight
Recruiting: F
Recruits: D
Total Score: 5

Martin sneaks in at #40 due to his Elite Eight run in 2014. Apart from that, his coaching resume has been unspectacular. Cuonzo has only made one NCAA Tourney as a head coach, despite a really good season at Missouri State in 2011 and two more so-so years at Tennessee when he won 19 and 20 games respectively. His first season as the Cal Bears coach was a total flop and his second year has started out rocky as well. Cal has way too much talent to be left out of the Dance again, but with Cuonzo at the helm, they may be on the outside looking in come March.

39. Josh Pastner (Memphis)
Average Starting Rank: 22nd
Average Finishing Rank: 52nd   
Performance Variance: -133%
Tournament Appearances: 4
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: C
Recruits: C+
Total Score: 6

Pastner has the second worst performance variance percentage out of the 50 coaches in this analysis (right behind Jamie Dixon). The reason Pastner “earns” the 39th spot on this list is due to his four tourney appearances. His first four years at Memphis, Pastner had the luxury of competing in Conference USA, a league much too weak for the talent level of his Memphis teams (Exhibit 1: Memphis went 31-5 and 16-0 in C-USA in 2013 – they earned a 6 seed in the NCAA tournament). Pastner has never achieved higher than a 6 seed in the Dance, and has never gotten out of the second round despite having strong recruiting classes (including #4 in 2010) and loads of talent (Williams, Barton, Black, Goodwin). Pastner is another one of those coaches I don’t think too highly of, so I’m glad to see him down here.

38. Mike Anderson (Missouri, Arkansas)
Average Starting Rank: 72nd  
Average Finishing Rank: 68th    
Performance Variance: 6%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Second Round
Recruiting: D
Recruits: C
Total Score: 6

Suitcase Mike Anderson left Mizzou after the 2011 season when his “dream job” of coaching the prestigious Arkansas Razorbacks finally opened up. After a fantastic 2009 season leading the Tigers Anderson’s teams underperformed in both 2010 and 2011. He left what would eventually become a 2-seeded team in 2012 (in the “capable” hands of Frank Haith) for one of the weakest teams in the 2012 version of the SEC. Anderson has actually done a decent job coaching the Backs. Since his arrival, Arkansas has improved every season; they even earned a 5-seed in last year’s tourney. Mike has a positive performance variance percentage, so I’ll leave him alone, but even despite pretty good recruiting, he has yet to match his magical 2009 season with Mizzou.

37. Ed Cooley (Fairfield, Providence)
Average Starting Rank: 84th
Average Finishing Rank: 73rd   
Performance Variance: 14%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds
Recruiting: D+
Recruits: D+
Total Score: 6

Cooley’s performance variance percentage is among the top ten coaches in this analysis; he has consistently performed above expectations. His relatively low ranking comes as a result of his one year with Fairfield (in which his Stags actually won the regular season MAAC, but failed to capture the auto-bid) and his 2012 and 2013 tourney no-shows at Providence. Like Suitcase Mike, Cooley has improved the Friar’s record in each year he has coached them, in fact you could argue he is already one of the most successful coaches in Friar History. His tourney streak should continue this season after two straight invites the past two years, mostly due to the fantastic play of Kris Dunn (who Cooley recruited). If we re-did this study in another 3-5 years, I’d bet Cooley would be in the top 20. Alas.

36. Fran McCaffery (Iowa)
Average Starting Rank: 53rd  
Average Finishing Rank: 51st   
Performance Variance: 5%
Tournament Appearances: 2
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Second Round
Recruiting: D-
Recruits: D-
Total Score: 6

McCaffery has been steady at Iowa, lifting the program back up after three dismal years under Todd Lickliter. The Hawkeyes have won over 20 games the past three seasons, and should continue that streak this year. Before Iowa, McCaffery led Siena to three straight NCAA tournaments, so you get the feeling his success isn’t a flash in the pan. Like Cooley, McCaffery would benefit from conducting this analysis again in a few years.

35. Bob McKillop (Davidson)
Average Starting Rank: 100th  
Average Finishing Rank: 91st   
Performance Variance: 9%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 3 First Rounds
Recruiting: F
Recruits: F
Total Score: 7

35th out of 50 may not seem too impressive at first glance, but when you consider McKillop has been at the helm of a mid-major during all five year of this study, the ranking is actually quite good. Prior to last season in which the Cats VASTLY overachieved and earned a 10-seed in the tourney (and besides Curry’s 2008 team), Davidson has never earned higher than a 13 seed under McKillop (since 1989). This is primarily due to the fact Davidson had the unfortunate luck to play in the Southern conference up until 2014 when they became a member of the A-10. I’m of the opinion that McKillop is an excellent coach and his Davidson teams should continue to “surprise” for years to come.

34. Scott Drew (Baylor)
Average Starting Rank: 19th  
Average Finishing Rank: 35th    
Performance Variance: -84%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Sweet Sixteen, 1 Elite Eight
Recruiting: C+
Recruits: C+
Total Score: 8

Scott Drew takes a lot of crap from basketball “experts”, and if you look at his performance variance percentage and the insanity of talent some of his Baylor teams have had, some of this crap may be justified. However, let me just quickly stand up for old Scotty – this guy brought the Baylor program back from near destruction when it was crippled from the awful 2003 Dennehy murder and NCAA allegations. Drew took over the program in 2003-2004, winning 8, 9, and 4* games his first three years as a head coach. Since then, Drew has led the Bears to a record of 209-107, with five tournament appearances in nine years. He is also a pretty good recruiter, having a top 25 class in each year from 2009 – 2014. So maybe Scotty isn’t a great in-game coach, but he appears to at least be a positive influence on the Baylor program (oh and he also has a sweet sixteen and elite eight appearance in the last two years – so that’s not too shabby either).

* Baylor only was allowed to play conference games this season due to NCAA sanctions

33. Bob Huggins (West Virginia)
Average Starting Rank: 50th  
Average Finishing Rank: 57th   
Performance Variance: -15%
Tournament Appearances: 3
Tournament Performance: 1 First Round, 1 Second Round, 1 Sweet Sixteen
Recruiting: C-
Recruits: C-
Total Score: 8

I’ll be honest, this one surprised me. I’ve always had the notion that Bob Huggins is one of the best coaches in America hands down; it seems like no matter what the year is, his teams are always competitive. And, actually, since he became a D1 coach in 1985, Huggins has only had ONE losing season. One season in 31 total. That is ridiculously impressive. So unfortunately for Huggins, that one losing season happened to come in 2013, which is one of the five years we are monitoring in this analysis - poor luck for Bobby. West Virginia has been a very tough team overall since 2007-2008 when Huggins took over for John Beilein, but missing the Dance in 2013 and 2014 has hurt Huggins’ ranking in this study. His slightly negative performance variance percentage doesn’t do him any favors either. Huggins has had an illustrious coaching career and is likely a Hall of Famer, so I’m sure his ranking on this list won’t chafe his chaps too badly.

32. Rick Barnes (Texas) (Currently Tennessee)
Average Starting Rank: 32nd    
Average Finishing Rank: 38th     
Performance Variance: -19%
Tournament Appearances: 4
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: A-
Recruits: A-
Total Score: 9

If you told me Rick Barnes would rank ahead of Bob Huggins in this coach analysis, I’d have guffawed in your face. But here he is #32, Rick Barnes. Barnes has had the luxury of coaching Texas, one of the top coaching jobs and destination schools for high school athletes across all sports. Barnes has the 5th best recruiting resume out of all coaches on this list – the other four are ranked #4, #5, #13, and #17. What I’m getting at is Texas has severely underperformed under Barnes. Texas does have a Final Four appearance under Barnes (thanks Kevin Durant!), but with the almost unfair talent they bring in every year, they should have many more. Barnes’s grossly underperforming teams eventually got him canned. Maybe he will have more success facing a less pressure-filled situation in Tennessee.

31. John Thompson III (Georgetown)
Average Starting Rank: 26th
Average Finishing Rank: 31st     
Performance Variance: -16%
Tournament Appearances: 4
Tournament Performance: 2 First Rounds, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: C+
Recruits: C+
Total Score: 9

Here’s another coach that on the surface appears to be a competent leader, but when examining JT3’s coaching career, it really isn’t that impressive. After Georgetown’s Final Four run in 2006-2007, Thompson’s teams have lost either in the first or second round of the tournament EVERY year (they also have two NIT appearances). Town’s ’06 – ‘07 team had four NBA players (Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green, Patrick Ewing, Jr., and Dajuan Summers), so coaching mayyyyy not have mattered too much in their success. I’m not sure JT3 will ever be in danger of losing his job at Town (he has made 4 tourneys in the past 5 years after all), but aside from earning a few high seeds in the Dance, Thompson hasn’t accomplished much - at least in the last five seasons.

30. Jay Wright (Villanova)
Average Starting Rank: 32nd    
Average Finishing Rank: 37th     
Performance Variance: -14%
Tournament Appearances: 4
Tournament Performance: 2 First Round, 2 Second Rounds
Recruiting: D+
Recruits: D+
Total Score: 9

GQ Jay (absolutely fantastic nickname – thank you Gus Johnson) has led the Nova Cats to two great regular seasons the past two years, winning 29 games in 2014 and 33 games in 2015. The problem is, Villanova lost in the second round of the tourney in both those seasons (as a 2 and 1 seed, respectively). Yes after his Final Four run in 2008-09, Wright (who does not look his age at 53) has not made it past the second round since. Wright’s negative performance variance percentage is slightly misleading. He has actually improved on Nova’s starting rank in each year of this study except for 2012, in which his Cats were one of the youngest teams in the nation and perhaps weren’t too deserving of their initial 38th ranking (finished 84th). Wright has proven he is a good regular season coach – since 2001-02 when he left Hofstra for Nova, his teams have finished below .500 twice and have won over 20 games ten times. His recent postseason struggles have what landed Wright this low on the list, but perhaps he can right the ship in 2016.

Stay Tuned for Ranking the Coaches Part II: #29 – #11!